Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementattorneylawyerforeclosurerestitution
settlementattorneylawyertrustforeclosurerestitution

Related Cases

In re Belz, 258 S.W.3d 38
View Case »
Dressel v. Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557, 664 N.W.2d 151
View Case »
Hoffert v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
Wunschel Law Firm, P.C. v. Clabaugh, 291 N.W.2d 331, 9 A.L.R.4th 181
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Womack, 269 S.W.3d 409

Facts

Zack N. Womack represented Bill Parks and his wife Brenda in a foreclosure case without a written fee agreement, leading to disputes over fees. Mr. Parks believed he would be charged an hourly rate, but Womack charged a contingency fee instead. After the foreclosure sale, Womack endorsed and deposited a check meant for Mrs. Parks into his escrow account without her permission, and later sent her a reduced settlement amount, claiming a 20% fee. The Parkses filed a complaint against Womack, alleging he had acted unethically by charging fees without proper agreements and failing to refund unearned fees.

Zack N. Womack represented Bill Parks and his wife Brenda in a foreclosure case without a written fee agreement, leading to disputes over fees. Mr. Parks believed he would be charged an hourly rate, but Womack charged a contingency fee instead. After the foreclosure sale, Womack endorsed and deposited a check meant for Mrs. Parks into his escrow account without her permission, and later sent her a reduced settlement amount, claiming a 20% fee. The Parkses filed a complaint against Womack, alleging he had acted unethically by charging fees without proper agreements and failing to refund unearned fees.

Issue

Did Zack N. Womack violate ethical rules by charging a contingent fee without a written agreement, failing to refund unearned fees, and making false statements to the Office of Bar Counsel?

Did Zack N. Womack violate ethical rules by charging a contingent fee without a written agreement, failing to refund unearned fees, and making false statements to the Office of Bar Counsel?

Rule

SCR 3.130 –1.5(a) requires that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; SCR 3.130 –1.5(c) mandates that a contingent fee agreement must be in writing; SCR 3.130 –1.16(d) requires refunding unearned fees; SCR 3.130 –8.3(b) and (c) address professional misconduct related to dishonesty and misrepresentation.

SCR 3.130 –1.5(a) provides: "A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. Some factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: … SCR 3.130 –1.5(c) provides: "A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other law. Such a fee must meet the requirements of Rule 1.5(a). … SCR 3.130 –1.16(d) provides: "Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned." … SCR 3.130 –8.3(b) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … [c]ommit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects…." … SCR 3.130 –8.3(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation…." … SCR 3.130 –8.1(a) provides: "[A] lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not … [k]nowingly make a false statement of material fact…."

Analysis

The court found that Womack's actions constituted violations of the ethical rules. He charged a contingency fee without a written agreement, which was not permissible. Additionally, he failed to refund the unearned portion of the fees after the Parkses demanded it. His false statements regarding the amount of work performed further demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity required of attorneys.

The court found that Womack's actions constituted violations of the ethical rules. He charged a contingency fee without a written agreement, which was not permissible. Additionally, he failed to refund the unearned portion of the fees after the Parkses demanded it. His false statements regarding the amount of work performed further demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity required of attorneys.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Kentucky concluded that a 30-day suspension, along with requirements for restitution and remedial education, was an appropriate sanction for Womack's misconduct.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky concluded that a 30-day suspension, along with requirements for restitution and remedial education, was an appropriate sanction for Womack's misconduct.

Who won?

The Kentucky Bar Association prevailed in this case as the court upheld the Board's recommendation for suspension and additional requirements for Womack.

The Kentucky Bar Association prevailed in this case as the court upheld the Board's recommendation for suspension and additional requirements for Womack.

You must be